AT&T, the exclusive carrier of the iPhone in the U.S., has spoken out against recent statements by the Federal Communications Commission chairman in favor of Net neutrality.

While AT&T supports the principles outlined Monday by Chairman Julius Genachowski for broadband access, the nation's second-largest wireless carrier reportedly does not have the same feeling for the cellphone market -- something Genachowski also mentioned in his speech Monday. In a new report from CNet, an AT&T spokesman is quoted as saying that wireless networks are different from broadband because bandwidth is limited.

"We are concerned, however, that the FCC appears ready to extend the entire array of Net neutrality requirements to what is perhaps the most competitive consumer market in America: wireless services," Jim Cicconi, AT&T's senior vice president of external and legislative affairs, reportedly said.

Joining AT&T in showing concern toward Genachowski's remarks was Verizon. A company spokesperson said some of the goals outlined in the FCC chairman's remarks could have "unintended consequences."

As exclusive agreements like the one between AT&T and Apple for the iPhone have gained more attention, the FCC has begun an investigation into the matter at the request of members of the U.S. Senate. In response, Verizon agreed to unlock some exclusive phones for use on smaller wireless carriers in rural areas.

The FCC's concern in the matter has been with some smaller markets where major carriers do not offer service. Because the iPhone is exclusive to AT&T, a customer would be unable to obtain the device in an area where AT&T does not provide coverage. The Rural Cellular Association, a group of smaller tier II and tier III wireless carriers, lobbied members of the U.S. Senate for their cause. The association has argued that their inability to provide their customers with some of the most popular mobile handsets and smartphones makes it difficult for them to compete, especially in markets where their coverage does overlap with some of the big tier I operators.

"There are markets in the country where if you wanted an iPhone, if you wanted a Pre, you just couldnt get it -- from anyone," Genachowski said in July. "So one question is, is that consistent with broad consumer interests?"

In addition, the FCC has also begun an investigation into wireless carrier competition. The commission has said its goal is to increase competition, innovation and consumer protection in the market. In August, the FCC released a number of official notices of inquiry, announcing investigations designed to look into wireless innovation and investment, mobile wireless competition, and additional opportunities to protect and empower consumers in the communications marketplace.

The FCC has also shown interest in Apple's App Store approval process. Apple, Google and AT&T all responded to an inquiry initiated after the Google Voice application was not accepted into the iPhone App Store.

On Monday, Genachowski outlined six principles he would like to see implemented in support of Net neutrality. They include freedom to access legal content and to use applications of the users' choice. The goal is to keep the Internet a free and open place, and prevent Internet service providers from selectively blocking or limiting access to specific services, like Voice Over IP services and peer-to-peer downloading software.

Invest in your network. Solve the bandwidth crunch, rather than degrade the service for your customers who are already paying very large monthly bills for your service.

I have no sympathy. Your network being slow is not because of "over-usage" or "abuse". It's because you've refused to invest in it.

There's a reason why Sprint and Verizon's data networks totally waste AT&T's: They have invested in their infrastructure. Sprint and Verizon aircards feel like portable DSL modems; that's how fast their service is.

Fix your network, AT&T, rather than fight against rules to make things fair for everyone.

AT&T is responsible for killing GV on the iPhone. Apple had little to do with it, apart from covering for AT&T.

Take Apple out of the mix for a second.

Why do you think AT&T wanted to pull GV from the iPhone, and not other phones on its network?

AT&T doesn't have the ability to muscle RIM into blocking specific apps. In fact, I'm not even certain that apps can be blocked for Blackberry, correct me if I'm wrong. They do have that ability with the iPhone, which needs Apple's blessing for every app installed unless it's jailbroken (which voids warranty and risks being bricked by OS updates).

What motivation would Apple possibly have to block Google Voice on its own? It doesn't compete with any Apple product or service, and it would increase the value of the iPhone. If anything, Apple would want to encourage the development of an iPhone Google Voice app.

It's AT&T that is threatened.

AT&T lacks technical and/or legal means to prohibit Windows Mobile and Blackberry users from installing third party applications. AT&T cant sue Google for offering a Blackberry app. All they can do is ban things in the terms of service, and pray people will obey. Apple has declared themselves gatekeeper for iTunes Store content, and that makes Apple responsible for its content. Apple and AT&T have agreements in place. Through those agreements, AT&T gains a level of control over third party applications they dont enjoy with the other handsets. Had Apple gone with Verizon instead, we'd be likely be seeing the exact same thing.

And really, The iPhone has hit AT&T in numbers it cant handle, and AT&T must be in a terrible love/hate relationship over it with both Apple and the consumers who have the iPhone. BB users are more likely business users and therefore less likely to jack around with apps like slingplayer or google voice. Consumer type iPhone users are far more likely to suck up data with these apps, and far more likely to drop expensive SMS services and replace them. Business users wont hassle with it, or will be prevented by corporate IT policy.

Makes plenty sense for AT&T to treat iPhone differently than other phones. AT&T holds the iPhone to a different set of standards and rules than other devices on its network.

The iPhone, in terms of network strain, data usage, and consumer usage habits, is unprecedented. It will overtake RIM. It's only a matter of time, and it'll happen sooner than we think. That will be an entirely unique strain on the major carriers, both financially and in terms of capacity. AT&T, at least in this case, saw the writing on the wall, and it did the most prudent thing in terms of it preparedness (or lack thereof.) They put a stop to GV.

How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google, MSN, Vonage, and others?
How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?
The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!

The market will find a way around AT&T eventually.

note: Whitacre is the guy doing the GM commercials now. He brags that he doesn't know about cars, just like he bragged that he didn't use a computer or email at AT&T.

AT&T is responsible for killing GV on the iPhone. Apple had little to do with it, apart from covering for AT&T.

Take Apple out of the mix for a second.

Why do you think AT&T wanted to pull GV from the iPhone, and not other phones on its network?

AT&T doesn't have the ability to muscle RIM into blocking specific apps. In fact, I'm not even certain that apps can be blocked for Blackberry, correct me if I'm wrong. They do have that ability with the iPhone, which needs Apple's blessing for every app installed unless it's jailbroken (which voids warranty and risks being bricked by OS updates).

What motivation would Apple possibly have to block Google Voice on its own? It doesn't compete with any Apple product or service, and it would increase the value of the iPhone. If anything, Apple would want to encourage the development of an iPhone Google Voice app.

It's AT&T that is threatened.

AT&T lacks technical and/or legal means to prohibit Windows Mobile and Blackberry users from installing third party applications. AT&T can’t sue Google for offering a Blackberry app. All they can do is ban things in the terms of service, and pray people will obey. Apple has declared themselves gatekeeper for iTunes Store content, and that makes Apple responsible for its content. Apple and AT&T have agreements in place. Through those agreements, AT&T gains a level of control over third party applications they don’t enjoy with the other handsets. Had Apple gone with Verizon instead, we'd be likely be seeing the exact same thing.

And really, The iPhone has hit AT&T in numbers it can’t handle, and AT&T must be in a terrible love/hate relationship over it with both Apple and the consumers who have the iPhone. BB users are more likely business users and therefore less likely to jack around with apps like slingplayer or google voice. Consumer type iPhone users are far more likely to suck up data with these apps, and far more likely to drop expensive SMS services and replace them. Business users won’t hassle with it, or will be prevented by corporate IT policy.

Makes plenty sense for AT&T to treat iPhone differently than other phones. AT&T holds the iPhone to a different set of standards and rules than other devices on its network.

The iPhone, in terms of network strain, data usage, and consumer usage habits, is unprecedented. It will overtake RIM. It's only a matter of time, and it'll happen sooner than we think. That will be an entirely unique strain on the major carriers, both financially and in terms of capacity. AT&T, at least in this case, saw the writing on the wall, and it did the most prudent thing in terms of it preparedness (or lack thereof.) They put a stop to GV.

you can block apps on the blackberry. most BB's are corporate users and either won't install GV or their IT deparments will block any unapproved app from being installed via the BES server. Or they will just blackhole the DNS if they see GV traffic going through their internal network via the BES server

BB's might not be as flashy, but if your corporate policy requires you to lock them down for security and other reasons then BB will easily beat the iPhone in the ability to do so. and it will be a lot cheaper

How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google, MSN, Vonage, and others?
How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?
The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!

The market will find a way around AT&T eventually.

note: Whitacre is the guy doing the GM commercials now. He brags that he doesn't know about cars, just like he bragged that he didn't use a computer or email at AT&T.

why should AT&T, VZW, T-Mo and Sprint continue to upgrade their networks if companies like Google can just sneak in and offer a cheaper service because they can? I bet once LTE comes out the telcos will just charge you $100 per month flat rate for the data and will let you run whatever you want

AT&T is responsible for killing GV on the iPhone. Apple had little to do with it, apart from covering for AT&T.

I don't see sufficient evidence to support that view. If anything, the evidence points directly in the opposite direction. Apple has a strong incentive to keep Google from subverting its platforms; the effect on AT&T is minimal at most.

why should AT&T, VZW, T-Mo and Sprint continue to upgrade their networks if companies like Google can just sneak in and offer a cheaper service because they can?

Because it's not in the public interest to allow the wireless carriers to use their position of control of a public resource to stifle competition and innovation. They're making plenty of money on the pipes, but, if they find it not profitable enough, they can always return their spectrum to the FCC. I doubt we see that happening even if strict wireless net neutrality is enforced for them.

Google bid on the 700MHz a few years ago but lost. Rumors were they only did it to saddle potential competition with debt. and there have been two successful startups in the cell phone business in the last few years. Boost Mobile and MetroPCS. If Google wants to be in the phone business they should pony up the cash and buy frequencies and set up roaming agreements with other carriers

Net Neutrality may work in home broadband to a point, but in the cell phone business there is enough evidence going back years to spank Google in court if they complain

I don't see sufficient evidence to support that view. If anything, the evidence points directly in the opposite direction. Apple has a strong incentive to keep Google from subverting its platforms; the effect on AT&T is minimal at most.

Tons of AT&T wireless customers who pay $20 for unlimited text or whatever unlimited text costs on a family plan would DROP that plan immediately for Google Voice. Pure profit out the window.

why should AT&T, VZW, T-Mo and Sprint continue to upgrade their networks if companies like Google can just sneak in and offer a cheaper service because they can? I bet once LTE comes out the telcos will just charge you $100 per month flat rate for the data and will let you run whatever you want

That's a good question. Google Voice is a great solution when you don't have decent AT&T Wireless coverage in your home - as long as you have a landline. With GV you have free unlimited long distance and you won't consume minutes when people call you. It's an excellent alternative to AT&T's MicroCell.

Of course AT&T (and Verizon and all the others too) oppose Net Neutrality (except were it does not gore their ox). IT IS ALL ABOUT $. They will take all the $ they possibly can from the customer. This is a profit based economy. Do you think the High and Mighty AT&T managers will take pay cuts so that we (consumers) can save $0.01 a month on our data plan? What about the stock holders? Will they buy AT&T stock if they get less than their 3 - 5% growth/dividend each quarter?

We consumers are paying for that, ALL of it. It pays your salary (in the industry you work in). AT&T will squeeze every $0.01 out of us they can. We can only vote with our pocket books/wallets and support those that do give us what we want. (REMEMBER that we will pay one way or the other: lower data plan rates and if everybody does the same then in your industry - ultimately lower salaries.) This is the capitalist economic system we have chosen.

GV, like all Google products and services is a dual purpose trojan horse designed to a) undermine the platform it runs on or is accessed from and give Google greater control of information access, and b) give Google access to, and control of, personal and private information. As such, Apple stands to lose much more by having the iPhone platform turned into Android-light than AT&T does from text message losses.

This is all pretty obvious if you look objectively at what the three companies' businesses are all about, but pretty much everyone is allowing their feelings about the companies involved to cloud their judgment on this and related issues.

AT&T is responsible for killing GV on the iPhone. Apple had little to do with it, apart from covering for AT&T. ...

Okay, that's a thesis statement ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

... Why do you think AT&T wanted to pull GV from the iPhone, and not other phones on its network?

And your very first point demolishes your own argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

... What motivation would Apple possibly have to block Google Voice on its own? ...

How about the exact motivation they stated?

You know when they owned up to being entirely responsible for blocking Google Voice and how it has nothing to do with AT&T except for the VoIP on cell part which will be eliminated by these rules if they go into effect?

GV, like all Google products and services is a dual purpose trojan horse designed to a) undermine the platform it runs on or is accessed from and give Google greater control of information access, and b) give Google access to, and control of, personal and private information. As such, Apple stands to lose much more by having the iPhone platform turned into Android-light than AT&T does from text message losses.

This is all pretty obvious if you look objectively at what the three companies' businesses are all about, but pretty much everyone is allowing their feelings about the companies involved to cloud their judgment on this and related issues.

I agree Apple has something to lose, and maybe it's not as obvious as AT&T and the text messaging.

I can already sync my contacts with Google on the iPhone. If Apple is after my Contacts business they should start there. They've largely ignored the phone aspect of the phone and let others in already. Blocking GV makes Apple look confused.

If Apple wants me to use their phone functions instead of Googles they should come up with better services. Not deny me access to something that's better.

I'll never understand why people use the argument "well people can't even buy it where there's no coverage" , that's some bull, that's like complaining to the government that there's no place to drive your speed boat in the middle of the desert. i mean, come on people.

If the FCC was really interested in empowering the consumer and promoting competition, then they should require:

1. Hardware (cell phones, etc. ) should be unlocked and freely allowed to be taken from one carrier to another. If the carriers know that their customers can leave them at any time, it would make them provide better services. This would also keep more perfectly good cell phones out of the landfills.

2. Change the contract model that the carriers are currently using to something that doesn't lock the customer in for several years. I'm not sure what would be a viable replacement but I know several people that would like iPhones and can't (won't) break their contracts because of the severe fees associated with it.

To be fair: it's not like Google Voice would be the first app that AT&T might want to see treated differently on the iPhone, despite it working just fine on other phones on their network.

See: air sharing, slingcast, tethering or even MMS.

That said, I think the most likely explanation is that Apple is negotiating with AT&T to create services very similar to what Google Voice offers and isn't wild about Google beating them to the punch.

E.g. If GV launches and then next year Apple announces a voicemail-to-email transcription and SMS synopsis feature, or number-redirect features, it would lend a great deal of additional weight to Apple's arguments about user/feature confusion.

I agree Apple has something to lose, and maybe it's not as obvious as AT&T and the text messaging.

I can already sync my contacts with Google on the iPhone. If Apple is after my Contacts business they should start there. They've largely ignored the phone aspect of the phone and let others in already. Blocking GV makes Apple look confused.

If Apple wants me to use their phone functions instead of Googles they should come up with better services. Not deny me access to something that's better.

I don't really think Apple is after your Contacts business per se (At least not in the way, and for the reasons, that Google is; their business model is not based on commoditizing personal information.) However, I completely agree with you that Apple should improve their software so that GV and other Google software are less appealing to consumers and make Apple's platforms less vulnerable to this particular type of attack.

However, it's much easier to carry out this sort of attack than defend against it. Much in the way that it's much easier for hackers to discover and exploit vulnerabilities than it is to find them all and plug them. As a platform vendor not interested in a dumbed-down Chrome-like experience, Apple has to tend a lot of pans on the fire at the same time. I expect the reason the third-party GV apps were originally approved is that no one at a high level actually looked in detail at what this actually did to the platform, but that the Google GV app probably caught the attention of higher ups who realized the danger it posed.

If the FCC was really interested in empowering the consumer and promoting competition, then they should require:

1. Hardware (cell phones, etc. ) should be unlocked and freely allowed to be taken from one carrier to another. If the carriers know that their customers can leave them at any time, it would make them provide better services. This would also keep more perfectly good cell phones out of the landfills.

2. Change the contract model that the carriers are currently using to something that doesn't lock the customer in for several years. I'm not sure what would be a viable replacement but I know several people that would like iPhones and can't (won't) break their contracts because of the severe fees associated with it.

It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

This would be a horrible solution. If we required every cell phone maker to ensure that every phone is compatible with every carrier, prices would SKY ROCKET! No one would be able to afford one every few years.

Also, you don't have to lock into a carrier....just buy the phone at list price. Ahhh.....you wouldn't like that would you?

Change the contract model that the carriers are currently using to something that doesn't lock the customer in for several years.

The easiest change there would be to require them to offer the unsubsidized plan rate to consumers. If hardware is unlocked and someone sees a 2-year subsidized plan rate next to the 'bring your own phone' rate, the market will take care of the rest.

How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google, MSN, Vonage, and others?
How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?
The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!

The market will find a way around AT&T eventually.

note: Whitacre is the guy doing the GM commercials now. He brags that he doesn't know about cars, just like he bragged that he didn't use a computer or email at AT&T.

Ok, so we all agree that ATT is evil. By seriously, I don't see the issue with what you quoted? Why should ATT not make money off their investment in their infrastructure? I don't think he was suggesting that Google make payments to ATT, but that Google's customers pay for the bandwidth they use. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple makes a higher profit margin off that Mac you bought than ATT makes off the service they sell you. Does that make Apple evil, too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by al_bundy

why should AT&T, VZW, T-Mo and Sprint continue to upgrade their networks if companies like Google can just sneak in and offer a cheaper service because they can? I bet once LTE comes out the telcos will just charge you $100 per month flat rate for the data and will let you run whatever you want

I think what will happen is you'll start seeing more tiered price plans from the carriers with different download caps and/or download speeds based on how much you pay. Just like they currently have for calling plans. Charging everyone a single flat rate means that the light users are essentially subsidizing the heavy user's bandwidth usage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Because it's not in the public interest to allow the wireless carriers to use their position of control of a public resource to stifle competition and innovation. They're making plenty of money on the pipes, but, if they find it not profitable enough, they can always return their spectrum to the FCC. I doubt we see that happening even if strict wireless net neutrality is enforced for them.

I agree net neutrality is important from the standpoint that there shouldn't be discrimation based on type or source of data. But managing the load/bandwidth to optimize performance should be allowed. They should be allowed to ensure everyone as at least a minimum connection and not let a handful of heavy users degrade performance for everyone else. And if the heaviest of users want/need the infrastructure upgraded to support their habbits, then they should be willing to pay for it.

If the FCC was really interested in empowering the consumer and promoting competition, then they should require:

1. Hardware (cell phones, etc. ) should be unlocked and freely allowed to be taken from one carrier to another. If the carriers know that their customers can leave them at any time, it would make them provide better services. This would also keep more perfectly good cell phones out of the landfills.

2. Change the contract model that the carriers are currently using to something that doesn't lock the customer in for several years. I'm not sure what would be a viable replacement but I know several people that would like iPhones and can't (won't) break their contracts because of the severe fees associated with it.

It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

1. you can kind of do this if manufacturers would make all phones with CDMA and GSM radios and the software. some blackberries have this and they are very expensive

2. that was already tried with the original iphone at launch and it was a dismal failure. it failed so bad that Apple/AT&T had to quickly work out a subsidy agreement because only a few of the most hardcore fanboys bought the iphone when it first came out. no one in their mind wanted to pay $600 for a cell phone

Why should ATT not make money off their investment in their infrastructure?

AT&T (and other communications service providers) should make money off their investment in their infrastructure. They should not make money by shaking down content providers for cash or by leveraging their control of the pipe into control of the content.

Also, you don't have to lock into a carrier....just buy the phone at list price. Ahhh.....you wouldn't like that would you?

Of course the problem there is that the carrier is still going to charge you the same rate for service as they do for the person who got their phone subsidized.

One thing the carriers should be required to do is detail on every monthly statement which portion of your payment is going towards subsizing the phone you got and what is going towards your service. If I keep my phone past my two year contract, theoretically my monthly bill should go down because my subsidy has been fully recovered by the carrier. But it doesn't. Or if I buy a phone at full price, my monthly bill should reflect a lower rate due to not having to pay back the subsidy.

Of course the problem there is that the carrier is still going to charge you the same rate for service as they do for the person who got their phone subsidized.

One thing the carriers should be required to do is detail on every monthly statement which portion of your payment is going towards subsizing the phone you got and what is going towards your service. If I keep my phone past my two year contract, theoretically my monthly bill should go down because my subsidy has been fully recovered by the carrier. But it doesn't. Or if I buy a phone at full price, my monthly bill should reflect a lower rate due to not having to pay back the subsidy.

boost mobile is $50 a month for unlimited phone, text and web. of course you have to pay $350 for a "free" phone and it doesn't include features like a full web browser, exchange email and other things the iphone supports

boost mobile is $50 a month for unlimited phone, text and web. of course you have to pay $350 for a "free" phone and it doesn't include features like a full web browser, exchange email and other things the iphone supports

This is an overly simplistic argument. Assuming the major carriers were forced to change their billing/contractual practices, you haven't provided a foundation to show that they would likely adopt the same pricing structure as companies like Boost, who would be forced to adjust their own pricing policies in reaction as well. Just pointing to the way a company like Boost does business in the current environment doesn't indicate anything about the way they or other companies would do business in a different environment.

This is an overly simplistic argument. Assuming the major carriers were forced to change their billing/contractual practices, you haven't provided a foundation to show that they would likely adopt the same pricing structure as companies like Boost, who would be forced to adjust their own pricing policies in reaction as well. Just pointing to the way a company like Boost does business in the current environment doesn't indicate anything about the way they or other companies would do business in a different environment.

Boost offers a very limited selection of phones because they know which phone is estimated to use how much bandwidth per month so the price accordingly to pay for their bandwidth costs.

the reason AT&T and VZW cost more is to pay the phone subsidy and pay for the faster speeds and bandwidth of the phones they offer

Boost offers a very limited selection of phones because they know which phone is estimated to use how much bandwidth per month so the price accordingly to pay for their bandwidth costs.

the reason AT&T and VZW cost more is to pay the phone subsidy and pay for the faster speeds and bandwidth of the phones they offer

The reason that AT&T and Verizon cost what they do is because they don't compete on price (and barely on service). And Boost costs what it does because they've calculated how much cheaper they have to be, and no more, to optimize their revenue versus the major carriers.

Google and Microsoft both have vast Internet 2 grade networks to route traffic on. They bought up a lot of the dark fiber for pennies on the dollar when so many fiber companies went bankrupt trying to cash-in on the Dot-COM Bubble.

Now if I can just get Google to rescue Vonage with a slick "partnering" agreement and use that nice GOOG network.

Really the only solution here is going to be network retailers who buy network access from local-loop, trans-national, and global network providers. Three tiers: content providers, retailers, and network providers. Then we would have the ability to have the same level of competition that there is for appliances, furniture, etc. where the focus is on quality of service and service level agreements from supply-chain management.

The reason that AT&T and Verizon cost what they do is because they don't compete on price (and barely on service). And Boost costs what it does because they've calculated how much cheaper they have to be, and no more, to optimize their revenue versus the major carriers.

along with sprint it's an example of lower priced service. of course you get what you pay for.